Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 15, and 20 recite at line 6: “(IIR) filter” should be replaced by --Infinite impulse response (IIR) filter--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14 depend from objected claim 1 and claims 16-20 depend from objected claim 15; therefore, claims 2-14 and 16-19 are objected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: the claim recites “a method of monitoring…comprising steps of: receiving a signal…passing the raw baseline datapoints…fitting…and generating an alarm indicating...threshold” which is directed one of the four statutory categories, process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the claim recites an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 1 recites “a method of monitoring a material yield sensor assembly…comprising steps of: receiving a signal…passing the raw baseline datapoints…fitting the filtered datapoints…generating an alarm…” which falls within both mental processes and mathematical calculation. The steps may be carried out as a mental process if the algorithm is simple enough, and as a mathematical process if the algorithm is more complicated. Therefore, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mental processes that may be carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations, or by hardware processors, for more complicated situations.
The claimed invention thus recited as an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The sensor recited in claim 1 is a field of use tool and not a particular device.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The recited steps in claim 1 are not performed by any particular device.
Steps “receiving signal…passing…fitting…” are merely data gathering.
Step “generating an alarm indicating the material yield sensor assembly should be serviced if a fitted datapoint of the plurality of fitted datapoints is greater than a first threshold” does not provide any information as how the sensor should be service but instead covers any possible service. As such, there are no meaningful constraints on the generating step such that the particular service would apply because it is not limited to any particular manner or type of service. This limitation is at most an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception.
Further, the “(generated) alarm…” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The recited method claim recites steps which are recited at such a high level of generality that they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine. The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claim 2 adds a limitation not include additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The claim does not provide any information as how the sensor should be service but instead covers any possible service. As such, there are no meaningful constraints on the generating step such that the particular service would apply because it is not limited to any particular manner or type of service. This limitation is at most an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception. Further the “(determined) temporal projection” and the “(generated) warning…” are insignificant extra solution. The “(generated) warning…” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 3 and 4 add a limitation which is insignificant solution and merely data which merely extends the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Claims 5 and 6 add limitations which are data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Claims 7 and 8 add limitations which is a mathematical calculation and which is a merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Claims 9 and 10 add a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Claim 11 adds a limitation which is merely a tool used to perform the abstract idea. The device is not a particular device.
Claims 12-14 add limitations which are data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. Claim 14 recites an alarm which represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is ineligible for the same reasons as explained in claim 1. Claim 1’s explanation is herein incorporated by reference.
Dependent claim 16 adds a limitation not include additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The claim does not provide any information as how the sensor should be service but instead covers any possible service. As such, there are no meaningful constraints on the generating step such that the particular service would apply because it is not limited to any particular manner or type of service. This limitation is at most an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception. Further the “(determined) temporal projection” and the “(generated) warning…” are insignificant extra solution. The “(generated) warning…” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 17-19 add limitations which are insignificant solution and merely data which merely extends the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations. The warning represents the recited “warning” and “alarm” represent extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, the remote computing device as recited in claim 19 is not a particular device. It is a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Independent claim 20 recites similar limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 15, dependent claims 2 and 18. Independent claim 20 is ineligible for the same reasons explained in claims 1, 2, 15, and 18. Claims 1, 2, 15, and 18’s explanation is herein incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubrovsky et al. (hereinafter “Dubrovsky” (USPAP. 20230012094) and Varsasky et al. (CN 106028932) (hereinafter Varsasky).
Regarding claim 1, Dubrovsky discloses a method of monitoring a material yield sensor assembly for upward baseline drift caused by accumulation of debris on the material yield sensor assembly, the method comprising steps of:
receiving a signal representing a plurality of raw baseline datapoints from the material yield sensor assembly (Par. 66: signals from sensor 128; in some cases, at Par. 69, sensor device interface with porous membrane; also see sensor at Par. 75; signal from sensor device as shown at Pars. 83 and 87. Please also see system 1900 for fluid sensing using passive flow with sensor device at Par. 93. Both Dubrovsky discloses sensors such as optical sensor. Dubrovksy’s sensors are photodetectors and sensors for monitoring fluid flow, which are material yield sensors and can be used in agricultural implement. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, that Dubrovsky meets the claimed invention of claim 1 as in light of the instant Specification, the material yield sensor broadly comprises a photodiode and that material yield sensor is used for harvesting cotton or handling other material of which a yield (e.g. quantity or mass flow) is to be determined (See the instant Application’s PGPUB: Pars. 18, 19, 23-25, and Background);
passing the raw baseline datapoints through an IIR filter (IIR filter at Par. 66) thereby producing a plurality of filtered datapoints (signal processing at Par. 66);
Dubrovsky does not explicitly disclose “fitting the filtered datapoints to a curve via a curve fitter thereby producing a plurality of fitted datapoints; and generating an alarm indicating the material yield sensor assembly should be serviced if a fitted datapoint of the plurality of fitted datapoints is greater than a first threshold.”
Varsasky teaches “fitting the filtered datapoints to a curve via a curve fitter thereby producing a plurality of fitted datapoints (Varsasky teaches a calibration and fusion algorithms and signal integrity check that includes sensitivity loss (detection is one of permanent signal drift, noise and drift upwards in optical sensor. Varsasky teaches regression analyses for estimating the parameters of the best fit data such as linear regression, least mean square etc. See Fig. 16. Pages 26-28. Page 33 teaches linear fitting); and generating an alarm indicating the material yield sensor assembly should be serviced if a fitted datapoint of the plurality of fitted datapoints is greater than a first threshold (see Pages 33 and 34 for linear regression calibration to obtain the slope and offset to check if the value is within the normal range and thresholds. See Pages 29, 35 and 36 for failure warning, comparing reliability index with a lower threshold, service life for the sensor, expiation limits).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Dubrovsky's invention using Varsasky's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 1 to correct drift components and improve performance and availability (Abstract; Pages 8 and 13).
Regarding claim 2, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Varsasky teaches wherein the curve is linear and includes a slope and an intercept (Varsasky: see slope and intercept at Page 28 which are m and c in z(t) formula), the method further comprising steps of determining a temporal projection of the plurality of datapoints exceeding the first threshold based on the slope and intercept (see slope and intercept at Page 28 which are m and c in z(t) formula) (Varsasky teaches a calibration and fusion algorithms and signal integrity check that includes sensitivity loss (detection is one of permanent signal drift, noise and drift upwards in optical sensor. Varsasky teaches regression analyses for estimating the parameters of the best fit data such as linear regression, least mean square etc. See Fig. 16. Pages 26-28. Page 33 teaches linear fitting. In addition, Varsasky teaches at Page 28 that in order to use regression to estimate must be the most capable of describing the potential model of z (t) to make a selection. When using a moving average, in fact assumed single parameter model -- i.e., a constant may be described observation of drift during the time window. more complex model can be assumed, such as, linear relationship, wherein the need of higher order polynomial estimate two parameters, or more complex, wherein, it must estimate several parameters. regression analysis for estimating the parameters of the best fit data. as to the linear model, assuming that z (t) = mt + c such relationship exists, and regression analysis for estimating the minimum measurement z (t) and the estimated of the difference between the values of m and c. has various standard algorithm to estimate the optimal parameters (e.g., least mean square or LMS, maximum likelihood estimation, and Bayesian (Bayesian) linear regression), and it also ensures the estimation is robust (e.g., LMS ), assuming the model. Therefore, for discussion of the following, assumed when sufficient data is available estimation can be obtained); and generating a warning indicating the material yield sensor assembly should be serviced soon if the temporal projection is less than a second threshold (see Pages 33 and 34 for linear regression calibration to obtain the slope and offset to check if the value is within the normal range and thresholds. See Pages 29, 35 and 36 for failure warning, comparing reliability index with a lower threshold, service life for the sensor, expiation limits).
Regarding claim 3, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Varsasky teaches wherein the warning is presented as a yellow warning and the alarm is presented as red alarm (see Varsasky’s light map equation at Page 33 and warning at Page 29).
Regarding claim 4, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Varsasky teaches wherein the warning has a temporal length shorter than the temporal projection (see Varsasky’s light map equations at Page 33 and warning at Page 29).
Regarding claim 5, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Varsasky teaches wherein the second threshold is approximately thirty minutes (see Varsasky: light map equations at Page 33 and warning at page 29. See Pages 33 and 34 for linear regression calibration to obtain the slope and offset to check if the value is within the normal range and thresholds. See Pages 29, 35 and 36 for failure warning, comparing reliability index with a lower threshold, service life for the sensor, expiation limits. See Page 30 for the time interval for several minutes to several hours; Page 28 for the time window).
Regarding claim 6, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Varsasky teaches wherein the warning lasts approximately ten minutes (see Varsasky: light map equations at Page 33 and warning at page 29. See Pages 33 and 34 for linear regression calibration to obtain the slope and offset to check if the value is within the normal range and thresholds. See Pages 29, 35 and 36 for failure warning, comparing reliability index with a lower threshold, service life for the sensor, expiation limits. See Page 30 for time interval: several minutes to several hours. Page 28 for time window).
Regarding claim 8, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Varsasky teaches wherein the curve fitter is a least-squares linear curve fitter (see Varsasky: Page 28).
Regarding claim 9, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Dubrovsky discloses wherein the receiving step is performed in one second intervals.
(Dubrovsky: Par. 66).
Regarding claim 11, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Dubrovsky 11 teaches wherein the method steps are performed via a mobile device communicatively connected to the material yield sensor assembly (Dubrovsky: Par. 52).
Regarding claim 12, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Dubrovsky teaches wherein the raw baseline datapoints, filtered datapoints, and fitted datapoints are represented by double-precision floating-point values (Dubrovsky: Par. 66).
Regarding claim 13, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Dubrovsky discloses a step of wirelessly transmitting a signal representing the alarm (Dubrovsky: par. 52); but not explicitly to an agricultural implement. Varsasky discloses a wireless communication and display (Pages 4 and 18) but not explicitly to an agricultural implement.
Both Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose sensors such as optical sensor. Dubrovksy’s sensor are photodetectors and sensors for monitoring fluid flow, which are material yield sensors and can be used in agricultural implement. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, that Dubrovsky and Varsaksky meet the claimed invention of claim 13 as in light of the Specification, the material yield sensor broadly comprises a photodiode and that material yield sensor is used for harvesting cotton or handling other material of which a yield (e.g. quantity or mass flow) is to be determined (See the instant Application’s PGPUB: Pars. 18, 19, 23-25, and Background).
Regarding claim 14, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose a step of wirelessly transmitting a signal representing the alarm to a remote computing device (Dubrovsky: Par. 52. Varsasky: Pages 4 and 18).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubrovsky and Varsasky in view of CN 104977861 (English Translation submitted by Applicants) (hereinafter 861).
Regarding claim 13, Dubrovsky and Varsasky discloses everything as applied above). In addition, Dubrovsky discloses a step of wirelessly transmitting a signal representing the alarm (Dubrovsky: par. 52); but not explicitly to an agricultural implement. Varsasky discloses a wireless communication and display (Pages 4 and 18) but not explicitly to an agricultural implement.
861 teaches a control method and system for agricultural machine. 861 teaches a wireless communication protocol as shown in Fig. 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Dubrovsky and Varsasky's invention using 861's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 13 to allow generating and displaying time is continuously displayed and to transmit the information to a remote analysis system for further analysis for improving training and mechanical performance of method of operator. Further, it would help the operator can continuously display interaction with time in a different manner (861: Pages 33-35).
Regarding claim 14, 861 teaches a step of wirelessly transmitting a signal representing the alarm to a remote computing device (861: Pages 33-35).
Claims 7, 15, 17-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubrovsky and Varsasky in view of Jumbe et al. (USPAP. 20210345939)(hereinafter “Jumbe”).
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 1 (see claim 1’s explanation above) except “a 6-pole Butterworth IIR filter” (claim 1 recites an IIR filter that is disclosed by Dubrovsky, claim 1’s explanation is herein incorporated by reference).
Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied in claim 1 but not “6-pole Butterworth IIR filter”.
Jumbe teaches a 6 pole Butterworth IIR filter (Jumbe: discloses a wide range of sensor in a sensor module 330 at Par. 249 such as environmental sensors. The contextual sensor module 330 may include an ambient light sensor, an ambient humidity sensor, an ambient pressure sensor, an ambient temperature sensor, an air quality sensor (e.g., detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)), altitude sensor (e.g., relative pressure sensor), GPS, and/or other suitable sensor(s) to characterize the environment in which the sensing device is operating. Additionally, or alternatively, the contextual sensor module 330 may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU), individual gyroscope and/or accelerometer, and/or other suitable sensor(s) to characterize the sensing device relative to the environment. Jumbe teaches a signal processing method such as a 6 order Butterworth filter at Par. 484).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Dubrovsky and Varsasky's invention using Jumbe's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 15 to provide a faster and more accurate way in data exploration (Jumbe: Par. 463).
Claim 7 recites wherein the IIR filter is a 6-pole Butterworth IIR filter which is similar to a limitation of claim 15. Claim 15’s explanation is herein incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 17, Dubrovsky, Varsasky, and Jumbe disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Varsasky teaches wherein the warning is presented as a yellow warning and the alarm is presented as red alarm (see Varsasky’s light map equation at Page 33 and warning at Page 29).
Regarding claim 18, Regarding claim 13, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Dubrovsky discloses a step of wirelessly transmitting a signal representing the alarm (Dubrovsky: par. 52); but not explicitly to an agricultural implement. Varsasky discloses a wireless communication and display (Pages 4 and 18) but not explicitly to an agricultural implement.
Both Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose sensors such as optical sensor. Dubrovsky’s sensor are photodetectors, which are material yield sensors and can be used in agricultural implement. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, that Dubrovsky and Varsasky meet the claimed invention of claim 13.
Further, claim 18 can be rejected as being obvious by Dubrovsky and Varsasky in view of CN 104977861 (English Translation submitted by Applicants) (hereinafter 861). 861 teaches a control method and system for agricultural machine. 861 teaches a wireless communication protocol as shown in Fig. 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Dubrovsky and Varsasky's invention using 861's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 13 to allow generating and displaying time is continuously displayed and to transmit the information to a remote analysis system for further analysis for improving training and mechanical performance of method of operator. Further, it would help the operator can continuously display interaction with time in a different manner (861: Pages 33-35).
Regarding claim 19, Regarding claim 13, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Dubrovsky and Varsasky disclose a step of wirelessly transmitting a signal representing the alarm to a remote computing device (D: Par. 52. V: Pages 4 and 18).
Further, claim 19 can be met by 861 (Pages 33-35).
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claim 2. In addition, claim 20 recites “wherein the warning has a temporal length shorter than the temporal projection (similar to claim 4); and wirelessly transmitting a signal representing the alarm to at least one of an agricultural implement and a remote computing device (similar to claim 19)”. Claims 1, 2, and 15 are met by Dubrovsky, Varsasky, and Jumbe. Explanation of claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 19 is herein incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
Claim 10 is patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “a step of checking whether the fitted datapoint is greater than the first threshold minus a hysteresis value” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 121279579 discloses a technical field of environment monitoring, specifically to an environment parameter real-time pre-warning method and system for digital chicken farm, comprising the following steps: The method comprises the following steps: collecting ammonia gas concentration, temperature humidity and illumination intensity data in the henhouse, uniformly integrating to generate a monitoring record, extracting a safe interval and counting the ammonia gas exposure time length, judging the multi-factor deviation state, jointly analyzing the environment distribution change, and outputting the risk state and the pre-warning information. In the invention, the multi-source environment data is integrated through uniform time reference, the time sequence consistency between the parameters is improved, the ammonia gas safety interval is selected and the exposure time length is counted, the identification ability for low concentration long-term exposure is enhanced, the deviation state of temperature and humidity and illumination intensity is integrated, constructing multi-factor time sequence offset characteristic, combining the combined analysis of exposure and offset distribution, improving the continuity and accuracy of environment risk judgment, extracting high risk period and monitoring data thereof, enhancing the locating and response efficiency of abnormal state (Abstract).
CN 120847318 discloses the technical field of agricultural product detection, specifically to an agricultural product pesticide residue detection method and system. The invention, by introducing the spatial orientation characteristic of the molecular three-dimensional conformation parameter and establishing the symmetry index set, combining the temperature distribution in the chromatographic column operation parameter with the sampling direction for matching calculation, realizing the precise linkage of the structure information and the chromatographic path, through the coupling analysis of the response starting time and the chromatographic control parameter, setting the detection time window based on the target protein signal, and combining the signal change trend in the window to screen the response enhanced segment with obvious rising rate, through weighted fitting to obtain the target signal interval, The invention effectively improves the specificity and pertinence of the detection data, realizes the precise marking of the pesticide type in the complex sample by the comparison attribution of the peak time and the response data, and the solution has high stability and judgement accuracy under the condition that the sample has strong heterogeneity and the signal interference complex scene (Abstract). The invention discloses analyzing the signal intensity change rate between the signal points in the effective response sequence set in the window, screening the continuous section with the change rate greater than the change threshold as the response enhancement section, invoking the response enhancement section data to perform local weighted regression fitting, judging whether the fitting slope exceeds the fitting threshold, constructing a target response data set (Page 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUONG HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights